get_invoiceRetrieve the status and details of a single invoice—amounts, payments, and payment URL—to confirm whether it is pending, partial, paid, overpaid, expired, or cancelled.
Status and details of one invoice: pending, partial, paid, overpaid, expired or cancelled, amounts, payments and payment_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Invoice id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true) and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds meaningful content: it enumerates the possible invoice statuses and the data returned (amounts, payments, payment_url), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for missing ids and any auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence-fragment with the core content front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient but so terse that it reads as a field list rather than a full statement of behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the return-value summary (statuses, amounts, payments, payment_url), which is exactly the gap the missing output schema leaves. Missing only edge-case behavior such as not-found handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' is already documented as 'Invoice id', so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting for a one-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names the resource precisely ('Status and details of one invoice') and scopes it to a single record, which distinguishes it from list_invoices and find_invoice_by_order. It never uses an explicit retrieval verb and never names a sibling, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by 'one invoice' plus the required id, suggesting it is the lookup-by-id path. No explicit when-to-use, no mention of how it relates to find_invoice_by_order or list_invoices, and no preconditions such as needing an existing invoice id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.